PDA

View Full Version : About Rope Trick...



JonestheSpy
2009-12-30, 11:02 PM
Could be part of the 'overlooked rules' thread, but since Rope Trick is so often sited as essential in the arsenal of Wizard abuse, I thought it deserved its own thread.

From the SRD:

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

Extradimensional space - like Portable Holes and Bags of Holding. Obviously, "hazardous" is up to the GM, but I do wonder how many wizards would be happy to climb up Ye Olde Rope if there was a chance of a serious mishap with their storage devices each time...

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 11:04 PM
RAI suggests you should ignore this reference as it relates to Rope Trick. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a)

And of course, RAW suggests... nothing at all.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-30, 11:08 PM
Yeah, and the spell doesn't say anything happens... just that it's hazardous. Somehow.

erikun
2009-12-30, 11:10 PM
My current wizard doesn't have Rope Trick for that exact reason - it doesn't last all night at low levels, and at higher levels the party would (and now does) have bags of holding, etc.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 11:12 PM
My current wizard doesn't have Rope Trick for that exact reason - it doesn't last all night at low levels, and at higher levels the party would (and now does) have bags of holding, etc.

Elaborate - What exactly do you think would happen if they climbed into your Rope Trick with their bags?

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 11:12 PM
I know at one point the same thing happened as does when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole (or vice versa) an implosion into the astral plane. Think that was 3.0 and they took it out in 3.5... don't know why.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 11:14 PM
I know at one point the same thing happened as does when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole (or vice versa) an implosion into the astral plane. Think that was 3.0 and they took it out in 3.5... don't know why.

Because they realized how ridiculous it would be to penalize players for keeping their gear close by while they rested. See also: the link I posted.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-30, 11:15 PM
I know at one point the same thing happened as does when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole (or vice versa) an implosion into the astral plane. Think that was 3.0 and they took it out in 3.5... don't know why.

Nope! The spell is entirely unchanged. I checked.

It was 2e.

erikun
2009-12-30, 11:15 PM
Elaborate - What exactly do you think would happen if they climbed into your Rope Trick with their bags?
Given that my DM said they'd either implode of get us dumped in the Astral... I'm pretty sure one of the two.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-30, 11:17 PM
Given that my DM said they'd either implode of get us dumped in the Astral... I'm pretty sure one of the two.

So the reason you don't know the spell is because of a house rule, not the actual mechanics of the game? Okay.

BobVosh
2009-12-30, 11:23 PM
Wait, what? It still exists:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding

If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process.

As for rope trick in pathfinder it merely makes the bags go inert while you are in there.

taltamir
2009-12-30, 11:24 PM
I think I recall an errata or FAQ where WOTC has elaborated that this is only an issue if you "open" a bag of holding or a "portable hole" inside the rope trick / MMM / etc...

you can take your bag of holding into the rope trick, and out of... just don't activate it while inside one.

Optimystik
2009-12-30, 11:39 PM
Wait, what? It still exists:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#bagofHolding

Your quote says nothing about a Rope Trick.


I think I recall an errata or FAQ where WOTC has elaborated that this is only an issue if you "open" a bag of holding or a "portable hole" inside the rope trick / MMM / etc...

you can take your bag of holding into the rope trick, and out of... just don't activate it while inside one.

WotC says to ignore any interaction completely - again, I point to the link I posted.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-31, 12:58 AM
Yeah, and the spell doesn't say anything happens... just that it's hazardous. Somehow.

Perhaps it gives people cancer.

UglyPanda
2009-12-31, 01:23 AM
Yeah, and the spell doesn't say anything happens... just that it's hazardous. Somehow.Perhaps it gives people cancer.I kinda wonder where the extra-dimensional space is suspended in. If it's just suspended in space, there might be a chance of radiation.

Or pirates if it's Spelljammer. I prefer the latter.

*Thinking idly*
The bag of holding shows your equipment to the space pirates and they decide to something you...

Ack, it's late. My humors aren't working. In particular, the aqueous.

taltamir
2009-12-31, 01:26 AM
You never know. I kinda wonder where the extra-dimensional space is suspended in. If it's just suspended in space, there might be a chance of radiation.

Or pirates if it's Spelljammer. I prefer the latter.

this just might be a shot in the dark here but... i think the where is "outside" of your dimension. so where is it? in another dimension.

UglyPanda
2009-12-31, 01:28 AM
I mean in which dimension, guy-who-doesn't-know-how-to-imply-information. I don't think there is a designated dimension for extra-dimensional crap or that there is some sort of space in which other dimensions rest within.

Or is it just the astral plane?

taltamir
2009-12-31, 01:29 AM
ah, good question...
I don't rightly recall.
I think the astral plane... if it is a custom demiplane then it would also be in the astral plane.

BobVosh
2009-12-31, 01:35 AM
It is usually considered the astral plane.


Your quote says nothing about a Rope Trick.

I was responding to this for the bag of holding bit:


I know at one point the same thing happened as does when you put a bag of holding into a portable hole (or vice versa) an implosion into the astral plane. Think that was 3.0 and they took it out in 3.5... don't know why.

Optimystik
2009-12-31, 02:03 AM
I was responding to this for the bag of holding bit:

You misread Zaydos' post - he was saying that in 3.0, the same thing that happened when you dropped a bag of holding into a portable hole would happen with a Rope Trick, and they took it out for 3.5. So your quote is just reiterating what he said - the SRD says nothing about Rope Trick.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 06:32 AM
You misread Zaydos' post - he was saying that in 3.0, the same thing that happened when you dropped a bag of holding into a portable hole would happen with a Rope Trick, and they took it out for 3.5. So your quote is just reiterating what he said - the SRD says nothing about Rope Trick.

(He was wrong anyway, by the way.)

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 07:03 AM
RAW says it's hazardous. They don't explain what that hazard is. It's the DM's job to warn players who plan on using rope trick up front what it's known to do in their game world. If it does nothing, say it. If it implodes, say it. If it gives a cumulative 5% chance per hour to cause cancer, say it.


Because they realized how ridiculous it would be to penalize players for keeping their gear close by while they rested. See also: the link I posted.

I'd say it's because Wizards wanted to get away from the Gygaxian play style of magic being unpredictable and dangerous. A drawback isn't ridiculous when you're warned ahead of time. Now if the description said "DM has the right to screw with rope trick at his whim" then that would be ridiculous.

Also, FAQ is not RAW. If it's not in the errata it can be ignored like the FAQ saying blur and displacement also affect mirror image despite RAW saying figments and glamers cannot interact at all.


So the reason you don't know the spell is because of a house rule, not the actual mechanics of the game? Okay.

What is this supposed to mean? Obviously a house rule is a mechanic that applies in that DMs game. If the DM says "Rope trick implodes when you bring a bag of holding in it" then that's how his game world works and the mechanics are modified.

BobVosh
2009-12-31, 07:05 AM
Rope tricks and PH/BoHs are the cause of STDs still existing. Even clerics working full time can't stop them with cure diseases as adventurers know the rope trick is needed. And the mage can't have gear without his bag of holding.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 07:12 AM
What is this supposed to mean? Obviously a house rule is a mechanic that applies in that DMs game. If the DM says "Rope trick implodes when you bring a bag of holding in it" then that's how his game world works and the mechanics are modified.

It means "it's silly to use a house rule as an example of why you never choose a particular spell when no one else uses your house rules, making the statement pointless".

It's like saying you never choose Grease because your DM says it explodes if you cast a fire spell near it. Okay, but so what?

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 07:17 AM
It means "it's silly to use a house rule as an example of why you never choose a particular spell when no one else uses your house rules, making the statement pointless".

It's like saying you never choose Grease because your DM says it explodes if you cast a fire spell near it. Okay, but so what?

Silly outside of that particular DM's game, yes, but I thought you were implying it was silly to adhere to house rules that contradict RAW in general. My bad.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 07:26 AM
Silly outside of that particular DM's game, yes, but I thought you were implying it was silly to adhere to house rules that contradict RAW in general. My bad.

Psh, don't worry. I know I have a habit of being abrasive. I probably deserved it.

BobVosh
2009-12-31, 07:32 AM
Wait wait wait...we are missing a golden opportunity. We can finally retire "a wizard did it" with "Rope trick + BoH." It is dangerous in a vaguely threatening way as it introduces pure chaos. Everything can be explained with it.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 07:41 AM
Wait wait wait...we are missing a golden opportunity. We can finally retire "a wizard did it" with "Rope trick + BoH." It is dangerous in a vaguely threatening way as it introduces pure chaos. Everything can be explained with it.

As long as it doesn't screw over the players by destroying their equipment or killing them with no save, I approve of this.

Although it's still not RAW. But screw RAW, this is cool.

SparkMandriller
2009-12-31, 07:43 AM
So what, every time you bring a bag of holding into a rope trick, a groundsquid appears somewhere?

BobVosh
2009-12-31, 07:44 AM
Not everytime or it wouldn't be pure chaos. However, yes.

Sliver
2009-12-31, 08:33 AM
So what, every time you bring a bag of holding into a rope trick, a groundsquid appears somewhere?

Are those the kind that shoots rocks randomly? :smallconfused:

SparkMandriller
2009-12-31, 08:43 AM
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2433/dndgroundsquid.jpg

You are not so hungry you could eat one of these.

UserClone
2009-12-31, 11:38 AM
this just might be a shot in the dark here but... i think the where is "outside" of your dimension. so where is it? in another dimension.

Another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension, another dimension - now DON'T! you tell me to SMILE!

Damn it, now "Intergalactic" is in my head. Thanks a lot.:smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 11:49 AM
It's like saying you never choose Grease because your DM says it explodes if you cast a fire spell near it. Okay, but so what?

Have actually played with that house rule. It leads to utterly ridiculous abuse of grease beyond even normal levels.

Impair them, then burn them to death. Awesomeness.

Anyhoo, the thing with making lethal side effects like that is that they can be used on others. The old portable hole+bag of holding method of killing someone is expensive. Reducing it to a rope trick+bag of holding makes it more exploitable.

DMs who like to get "oldschool" and impose lots of harsh effects invariably act surprised when those effects are used as weapons.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 12:44 PM
DMs who like to get "oldschool" and impose lots of harsh effects invariably act surprised when those effects are used as weapons.

Surprised? Nah. A weapon in the PCs hand is a weapon in the DMs hand except, unlike the PCs, the DM isn't restricted by treasure tables or WBL.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 12:45 PM
Have actually played with that house rule. It leads to utterly ridiculous abuse of grease beyond even normal levels.

There's a reason the official "flammable Grease" spell is second level.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 12:50 PM
Surprised? Nah. A weapon in the PCs hand is a weapon in the DMs hand except, unlike the PCs, the DM isn't restricted by treasure tables or WBL.

Exactly. IE, the DM has no shortage of available options already. For example, a DM should have no trouble finding a flammable grease spell, or, if he wishes, a portable hole and bag of holding.

By adding effects to lesser stuff, he's merely increasing the options the PCs have access to with their resources.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 12:54 PM
Exactly. IE, the DM has no shortage of available options already. For example, a DM should have no trouble finding a flammable grease spell, or, if he wishes, a portable hole and bag of holding.

By adding effects to lesser stuff, he's merely increasing the options the PCs have access to with their resources.

Ah, I thought you were speaking from a point of view where that's a bad thing. I prefer PCs to find extraordinary uses out of mundane objects. Once there was a time when a jar of oil with a lit cloth wrapped around it was an effective attack at nearly every level.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 12:55 PM
Ah, I thought you were speaking from a point of view where that's a bad thing. I prefer PCs to find extraordinary uses out of mundane objects. Once there was a time when a jar of oil with a lit cloth wrapped around it was an effective attack at nearly every level.

...Doesn't a molotov cocktail deal, like, 1d6 splash fire damage?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 01:25 PM
Ah, I thought you were speaking from a point of view where that's a bad thing. I prefer PCs to find extraordinary uses out of mundane objects. Once there was a time when a jar of oil with a lit cloth wrapped around it was an effective attack at nearly every level.

Well...it can be bad, if taken to excess, or done in an inconsistant fashion. If the grease spell is flammable, it needs to be always flammable. It's bad for balance in that specific instance, but house rules aren't always so.

Extraordinary uses of mundane objects used to be something of a specialty for me...thing of it is, splash weapons at higher levels are useful...but only in bulk. The first step is convincing your DM that two flasks of acid are twice as damaging as one. The rest from there is merely carrying capacity and delivery mechanism.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 01:54 PM
...Doesn't a molotov cocktail deal, like, 1d6 splash fire damage?

3E really nerfed the damage on cocktails. A modified flask of oil works like alchemist fire but only has a 50% chance of igniting properly. Alchemist fire only deals a pitiful 1d6 points of damage with 1 point of splash.

In AD&D it was 2d6 with 1d3 splash and burned the next round for 1d6. This was a lot because creatures generally had lower hit point values. A troll had 30hp on average so the seemingly useless crap laying in the bottom of your backpack was actually useful.

There was a topic maybe about a year ago that covered multiple uses for mundane items. When playing a thief I usually attach a rope around a crowbar to create a makeshift grappling hook or slam empty potion vials (seriously, do most players even track their empty potion vials?) on the ground to create makeshift caltrops.


The first step is convincing your DM that two flasks of acid are twice as damaging as one. The rest from there is merely carrying capacity and delivery mechanism.

Two flasks? Nah. If they combined the flasks into a single jar then it should increase the damage. The way I look at it is the usefulness between two lit matches and an entire torch. There's strength in larger doses.

Optimystik
2009-12-31, 02:05 PM
I'd say it's because Wizards wanted to get away from the Gygaxian play style of magic being unpredictable and dangerous. A drawback isn't ridiculous when you're warned ahead of time. Now if the description said "DM has the right to screw with rope trick at his whim" then that would be ridiculous.

I don't get this veneration of "Gygaxian" mechanics, where spells aren't reliable and characters can die at the drop of a hat. Aren't there enough things in D&D trying to kill players without their class features getting in on the act?


Also, FAQ is not RAW. If it's not in the errata it can be ignored like the FAQ saying blur and displacement also affect mirror image despite RAW saying figments and glamers cannot interact at all.

First of all, my link is to Rules of the Game, not to the FAQ; and second of all, I explicitly labeled it as RAI, not RAW.

RAW says nothing other than "it's hazardous" which means jack squat. Crossing the street without looking first is also hazardous, it doesn't mean anything will happen.


What is this supposed to mean? Obviously a house rule is a mechanic that applies in that DMs game. If the DM says "Rope trick implodes when you bring a bag of holding in it" then that's how his game world works and the mechanics are modified.

The DM only has as much power as the players let him have. I wouldn't be surprised if there are games out there (not saying his is one of them, but I don't know) where the DM pronounces this as a drawback of Rope Trick, and the players go along with it despite not wanting to because they really do think there is some kind of RAW backing for that decision when there really isn't.

jmbrown
2009-12-31, 02:20 PM
I don't get this veneration of "Gygaxian" mechanics, where spells aren't reliable and characters can die at the drop of a hat. Aren't there enough things in D&D trying to kill players without their class features getting in on the act?


It was a different play style. Magic was like playing with fire and you had an equal chance of burning yourself or your enemy. 3E gave wizards a flame thrower, fire retardant gloves, and plenty of gas while saying "Have fun." I prefer the old style but I can respect that not many do.


First of all, my link is to Rules of the Game, not to the FAQ; and second of all, I explicitly labeled it as RAI, not RAW.

RAW says nothing other than "it's hazardous" which means jack squat. Crossing the street without looking first is also hazardous, it doesn't mean anything will happen.

It's still not a rule if it doesn't appear in errata. I really couldn't care less what the dev team has to say about it if it doesn't actually make it into writing. With that said, it's up to the DM to decide what "hazardous" means so it's a moot point either way. One guy says "Nothing happens" while another guy says "You decide what happens." If you decide that nothing happens, so be it.

Optimystik
2009-12-31, 02:59 PM
It's still not a rule if it doesn't appear in errata. I really couldn't care less what the dev team has to say about it if it doesn't actually make it into writing.

And I couldn't care less that they didn't bother to define "hazardous." RAW means Rules As Written - As written, there is zero interaction.

RAI means Rules As Intended - they author of that article is an official source, and clearly intended for you to ignore the interaction. Whether you do so or not is up to you, but it doesn't change the RAI any more than it changes the RAW.


With that said, it's up to the DM to decide what "hazardous" means so it's a moot point either way. One guy says "Nothing happens" while another guy says "You decide what happens." If you decide that nothing happens, so be it.

Again, the point of my post wasn't to tell anybody what houserules they should be using. The point was to educate players who may not realize their DMs are enforcing rules that don't actually exist. Houserules have changed due to player revolt before.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:08 PM
Do a google search with site:www.giantitp.com. This topic has come up before. I suggest you NOT ignore it because that's where all the rope trick abuse comes from.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:23 PM
Do a google search with site:www.giantitp.com. This topic has come up before. I suggest you NOT ignore it because that's where all the rope trick abuse comes from.

No, rope trick abuse exists regardless. Ignoring this just allows rope trick to be useful in conjunction with extradimensional storage items. I should point out that extradimensional storage can be replicated with spells, allowing casters to still exploit the crap out of this. This just means the melee types have to sleep outside.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:26 PM
At low level it doesn't last long enough. At high level there is detect magic, dispel magic, ways to realize that adventurers have been in your dungeon, etc. Not being able to bring in your loot without resorting to splatbooks is just an added reason why it can't see much high level use. Btw in that case the splatbooks are likely to blame, not rope trick.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 03:30 PM
Or both are to blame? Rope Trick isn't sacred because it's core, and this isn't an exclusive choice we have to make. Rope Trick is overpowered, splatbook extraplanar sources are (debatably) overpowered, Rope trick + splatbooks = overpowered.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:30 PM
At low level it doesn't last long enough. At high level there is detect magic, dispel magic, ways to realize that adventurers have been in your dungeon, etc. Not being able to bring in your loot without resorting to splatbooks is just an added reason why it can't see much high level use. Btw in that case the splatbooks are likely to blame (though it might be an understandable mistake), not rope trick.

Extend spell is core. So is Nystel's Undetectable Aura.

That takes care of duration, starting at level 5, and the second takes care of detect magic.

Unless you've been quite careless(let someone see you doing this, for example), you're now quite safe.

At high levels, you have teleport, then later, genesis.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:33 PM
Or both are to blame? Rope Trick isn't sacred because it's core, and this isn't an exclusive choice we have to make. Rope Trick is overpowered, splatbook extraplanar sources are (debatably) overpowered, Rope trick + splatbooks = overpowered.

I'd say that the splatbook sources are likely the less overpowered part, because people would rather buy a haversack than waste the spell slot.

At any rate, I've seen very few people rely on spells long term, but a LOT of casters buy haversacks and/or bags of holding. Low level spells aren't a priceless commodity, so they'll likely use the spells if your DM fiat makes the items dangerous, but otherwise, it's not likely to come up.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:40 PM
Extend spell is core. So is Nystel's Undetectable Aura.

That takes care of duration, starting at level 5, and the second takes care of detect magic.

Unless you've been quite careless(let someone see you doing this, for example), you're now quite safe.

At high levels, you have teleport, then later, genesis.

Extend spell buys you a brief window between character levels 5 and 7. Detect and dispel magic are still available to enemies, but are unlikely... much like spending 3,000 gp of your meager low level gold on the rod. Nystul's magic aura OTOH only affects objects. Enemy's that can't dispel can still camp you for 8 hours and prepare.

When a splatbook ability creates brokenage when combo'd with a core ability, you ban something. Maybe only the combo, maybe the splatbook ability, maybe the core ability. Often one is broken or at least a bit strong even by itself, otherwise you ban the combo. How high you want to let the power level become - what gets banned - is up to the DM.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-31, 03:43 PM
Then ban Rope Trick. Seriously, why is it necessary? I don't see many fantasy wizards playing around with ropes.

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:44 PM
It provides a window where you can see the monsters run by. Then you pop out and skeedaddle before they realize it's time to start a serious search for magical concealment. Or you spy on an area for a while, and get moving if an enemy caster looks like he's on to something. It's a duck-behind the corner spell that's been so often abused people forget that.

But, yeah, banning it works too if that's simpler for you.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 03:47 PM
Extend spell buys you a brief window between character levels 5 and 7.

It's useful well beyond there. You simply don't put the rope trick somewhere obvious. Just because an enemy can have dispel magic prepared isn't a guarantee that they do. Not all enemies are even casters. Hell, plenty aren't intelligent.


Detect and dispel magic are still available to enemies, but are unlikely... much like spending 3,000 gp of your meager low level gold on the rod. Nystul's magic aura OTOH only affects objects. Enemy's that can't dispel can still camp you for 8 hours and prepare.

True...but if we're going to be pedantic about auras and targets, the target for Rope Trick is a rope. You pull the rope into the extradimensional space with you. Given that the window cannot be seen through from the material plane, this interpretation would make detect magic completely useless at finding rope tricks.


When a splatbook ability creates brokenage when combo'd with a core ability, you ban something. Maybe only the combo, maybe the splatbook ability, maybe the core ability. Often one is broken or at least a bit strong even by itself, otherwise you ban the combo.

Or perhaps you change things a bit without reaching for the ban hammer?

Rope trick is sometimes said to be broken. I've never heard it require extradimensional storage spells to be so, and those spells are not broken when considered alone. They are merely useful in circumventing your "fix".

ericgrau
2009-12-31, 03:52 PM
What fix? I haven't added a rule.

Detect magic lasts a while so you can scout an entire dungeon. Also quite reasonable since PCs frequently use it and monsters may reasonably use it the minute PCs disappear as they know magic is the likely cause.

The fluff behind Nystul's aura strongly suggests use on magic item. That and tagging the rope with it means you hide the rope but not the window into another dimension. The "even if the creatures can see the window" line suggests that there can be ways to detect the window, even though normally it can't be seen.



Or perhaps you change things a bit without reaching for the ban hammer?

That's called "banning the combo only". Also, many people may not have X specific spell or item from book Y, so it may never even come up.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 04:12 PM
What fix? I haven't added a rule.

People will only bother with the extradimensional spell if you add a nasty interaction to extradimensional items/rope trick. There is no RAW penalty for this, just a warning of unspecified danger.


Detect magic lasts a while so you can scout an entire dungeon. Also quite reasonable since PCs frequently use it and monsters may reasonably use it the minute PCs disappear as they know magic is the likely cause.

If they are intelligent, are casters, and know/have prepared the spell, yes. It is a common spell. Depending on the dungeon, not all areas are easily accessible, or have convenient LOS. Deathtraps, etc are not entirely unusual. Outside of a dungeon, the possible search area can be quite large.

I don't deny that in some instances, they may come searching when PCs vanish, but it will not be every time, and it will not always be successful.


The fluff behind Nystul's aura strongly suggests use on magic item. That and tagging the rope with it means you hide the rope but not the window into another dimension. The "even if the creatures can see the window" line suggests that there can be ways to detect the window, even though normally it can't be seen.

So...it's a single magical aura. It's targetting a rope. If it's surpressed, it's surpressed. All of it.

They specify that they can't see through it. Presumably, this refers to LOS, and makes it clear that while those inside can peer out, those outside can't peer in. The window is specified to be invisible. Presumably, it's presence could be noted by those who see invisibility.

Still useful, but See Invisibility is higher level, and less commonly prepared/known.


That's called "banning the combo only". Also, many people may not have X specific spell or item from book Y, so it may never even come up.

When a combo is two different spells that don't interact, that's hard to justify.

JonestheSpy
2010-01-03, 12:49 AM
Bordering on thread necromancy to respond to all this, but I find it interesting enough to risk it. I must admit I'm a bit surprised by the amount of "just ignore it" reactions, though obviously Skip Williams' little thing lends itself to that. Myself, I'm with the folks who say that what the guy who's mostly responsible for the Monster Manual says on the internet doesn't mean jack - if there was an 'official' line, it would have been changed in the errata or the 3.5 conversion. It seems pretty obvious to me that Williams just didn't want things to be too complicated, is all.

It seems obvious to me that Rope Trick is a way overpowered spell for it's level - the way folks describe using it on ye olde interwebs anyway. I rather thought that more folks would appreciate an overlooked aspect of the spell that would restrict its use and still be completely RAW.

I suppose it all stems from the lack of specifics and the style of play one gravitates toward. For instance:


And I couldn't care less that they didn't bother to define "hazardous." RAW means Rules As Written - As written, there is zero interaction.

I look at this and see the exact opposite as Optimystik - just because there aren't actual numbers attached to something doesn't mean you can just ignore it - it means that the DM (gasp!) decides the effect for themselves. As written, there defintiely is interaction, and the rules about interaction between extradimensional spaces we about from other sources certainly backs that up.




RAI means Rules As Intended - they author of that article is an official source, and clearly intended for you to ignore the interaction. Whether you do so or not is up to you, but it doesn't change the RAI any more than it changes the RAW.

Well, see now we're trying to be mindreaders, but does it really seem logical that the game designers intended for wizards to have this ridiculously overpwered spell available at 3rd level? That one 2nd-level spell slot means the party never has to worry about camping again?



Again, the point of my post wasn't to tell anybody what houserules they should be using. The point was to educate players who may not realize their DMs are enforcing rules that don't actually exist. Houserules have changed due to player revolt before.

Ah, but in this case the houserule is to ignore the SRD. It is a strange and possibly unique case - the rules declaring that the DM should make up the rules- but considering the alternative is massive overpowering of a low level spell, I think it should be worth forcing a DM to use their judgement and creativity.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-03, 12:57 AM
Well, see now we're trying to be mindreaders, but does it really seem logical that the game designers intended for wizards to have this ridiculously overpwered spell available at 3rd level? That one 2nd-level spell slot means the party never has to worry about camping again?

Given their track record of placing ridiculously overpowered spells in the hands of players thought the entire game (Alter Self, Polymorph, PAO, Shapechange....) I'm not sure what they were thinking.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-03, 01:01 AM
Well, see now we're trying to be mindreaders, but does it really seem logical that the game designers intended for wizards to have this ridiculously overpwered spell available at 3rd level? That one 2nd-level spell slot means the party never has to worry about camping again.You can't sleep in it until level 9, unless you have Extend. and, what else would you use it for? The spell does nothing but provide a cheap, fast, nigh-impenetrable hiding place for several hours.

The interaction is poorly-defined. Most methods of making it dangerous also turn the spell into a weapon, which is clearly not RaI. There is little to base the rules for 'hazardous' on, except the already-broken Portable Hole+Bag of Holding. Even if you do give it rules, then the party just snags Secret Chest at 9th level, which the Wizard was going to do anyways for his spellbook, then use that to hold their BoHs.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:25 AM
On a side note, Pathfinder has a simple solution. You can't open one extradimensional space when in another.

This doesn't seem horribly unreasonable.

tyckspoon
2010-01-03, 01:41 AM
On a side note, Pathfinder has a simple solution. You can't open one extradimensional space when in another.

This doesn't seem horribly unreasonable.

It's not, but if you thought Rope Trick was broken in the first place it also doesn't fix the problem. It just means your party has to spend a couple of move actions pulling their camping gear out of their Bags/Haversacks before they climbg up instead of getting into the Rope Trick and then doing it.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 02:06 AM
Feh, the same is true with Secret Chest.

Whichever interpretation you take, it won't make any practical difference. So...go with one that doesn't require undefined DM fiat penalties, and people explicitly listing what they take out of their sack before they sleep.

Stormlock
2010-01-03, 02:21 AM
Yeah, instead of having a DM fiat over abusive rope trick shennanigans, we should just ban the spell entirely. Much more fun.

averagejoe
2010-01-03, 05:53 AM
Short of camping beneath one and waiting for the spell to end, is there any way to counter it/affect the people inside? If you didn't see the spell cast, or the rope hanging down or what have you, how can one find it?

Temotei
2010-01-03, 05:56 AM
Counter magic? How about an antimagic field or dispel magic? Mordenkainen's disjunction?

averagejoe
2010-01-03, 06:04 AM
Counter magic? How about an antimagic field or dispel magic? Mordenkainen's disjunction?

I'm not completely clear on what effects these things would have. For dispel or disjunction, it seems like once the rope is pulled up these wouldn't do any good since rope trick is now just an extradimensional space that stays unaffected by anything that doesn't cross planar boundaries. AMF might be able to suppress anyone from exiting the trick, and would prevent it from being cast if the wizard stayed in it, but it doesn't seem like it would actually somehow suppress the trick itself. Perhaps someone more well versed than me in the rules can correct me, but none of these things seem to work as far as I can tell.

BobVosh
2010-01-03, 06:08 AM
You don't dispel the rope. You dispel the "window."

The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can’t see through it.

Dispel it and the rope trick ends. (disjunction, AMF, etc)

DonEsteban
2010-01-03, 08:02 AM
Dispel it and the rope trick ends. (disjunction, AMF, etc)
I'd probably rule so, too, but I also have no good jsutification for it.


If you didn't see the spell cast, or the rope hanging down or what have you, how can one find it?

See invisibility or

An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40)
For example.

robotrobot2
2010-01-03, 08:42 AM
Extradimensional spaces are never effected by AMF, disjunction, or other material plane magic. However, since you cannot open an extraplanar space within an antimagic field, anything with in the rope trick can't leave until the AMF runs out or is dismissed.

jmbrown
2010-01-03, 08:50 AM
See invisibility lets you see the window and you can cast dispel on that to remove the effect. A DC 40 spot check lets you know "something's up there" but given that spot decreases every 10 feet it's practically impossible even for higher level creatures. Scent or monsters with the track feat can probably have an easy time of locating the PCs and intelligent trackers can discern that something's amiss when half a dozen tracks end in one spot. Also, rope trick only lets you see outside the window; you can't hear so monsters can set up ambushes or lay traps without the PCs knowing what they're saying.

There's not much you can do to counter it but I use a few tricks. The viewing window (3x5) is really small so PCs can't see much out of it even when they're 30' up (the max length of rope). This allows the PCs to get ambushed easily, just keep in mind that whatever they fight should reasonably be capable of knowing they were there in the first place (so drop a wizard or cleric in the fight who "saw" their window). Remember that intelligent monsters, even relatively dumb ones, keep hunting dogs or creatures with scent. Even a dumb hill giant should get the bright idea when their dogs lose the entire trail in the middle of a forest clearing. They might not know what spell the PCs used but they shouldn't wander too far, they should set up traps near the location, and they can even set up their own camp nearby in wait.

If the PCs use rope trick in the wilderness, use wild animal encounters. Suppose as they're coming out they spot an elk. No big deal. As soon as one of them touches the ground a dinosaur or dire tiger stalks out. It was chasing the elk but seeing fresh, solitary (only one person can climb the rope at a time) meat it decides to forget the elk and pounces the PC.

Another counter is to have the NPCs use rope tricks. It makes an excellent ambush, it's a 2nd level spell, can be cast on a 5' piece of rope so they don't take damage, and it can be dismissed. Nothing like 7 fighters and a wizard dropping out of thin air to engage the PCs. A logical counter to this is that they won't be able to see approaching NPCs but this can be fixed with a signaling trap of some sort or strategically placing a strong light source behind the PCs general approach so they can watch incoming shadows.

Finally, the best solution to rope trick is time sensitive events. IMO no world should be static. If the BBEG sends an ultimatum saying he'll execute the king in 24 hours the PCs won't tarry long unless they don't care about the king's life. If the PCs blow their spells in the middle of a dungeon and decide to extend rope trick, have the monsters grab as much loot as they can carry and leave. The PCs breached their lair, half their dudes are dead, and the PCs just vanished in thin air; no point in waiting around for more heroes to show up or even the originals to return to finish the job.

Some players will complain this is cheating or unfair or whatever. There's nothing unfair about making people realize there's a reaction to their actions. Just make sure the actions are reasonable before you enact them. A behir probably isn't going to lie in wait in the area the PCs used rope trick but orc raiders with hunting dogs might carefully watch the area for a few hours. A vampire isn't going to leave his lair during the day but if the PCs are still resting in his dungeon at nighttime there's nothing stopping him from grabbing his coffin and leaving. A dragon certainly wouldn't leave his cave and treasure unprotected but he can probably sense the window and will lie in wait for an ambush.

Saph
2010-01-03, 10:06 AM
The best counter to Rope Trick is usually to make it clear to PCs that more interesting stuff will happen if they interact with things than if they spend the best part of each day sitting in a pocket isolation cell.

If a DM actually wants to counter it a simple solution is to use babaus (file:///Games/D20%20SRD/www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). They have See Invisibility and Dispel Magic at will, and they're only CR 6. Give the BBEG a few as scouts and messengers. They sneak around, spot the Rope Trick, dispel it.

However, a simpler solution is to just let the PCs do what they want. OK, so the PCs are in a rope trick. So what? The rest of the world will carry on without them. They're not under an obligation to do anything interesting. If they really want to hide and are actually enjoying themselves I don't really see the problem (it's a pretty weird way to spend a session, but hey, whatever floats your boat).

graeylin
2010-01-03, 11:10 AM
my take has always been to carefully read the wording of the items/spells...

rope trick states it is a bad idea to take EXTRADIMENSIONAL items into the rope trick space (being extradimensional itself). It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

The Bag of holding is a NON-Dimensional space, not an Extra dimensional space.
RAW, there should be no problem.

For further justification, the text with the bag and hole refer to each other (If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process. for the Hole, Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space. If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in that place. Both the bag and the cloth are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, the portable hole and bag of holding being destroyed in the process.) Nothing is said about taking them into Extradimensional spaces, just inside each other.

so, unless Extradimensional spaces and Nondimensional spaces are the same, no problem...

Saintjebus
2010-01-03, 11:31 AM
The problem is that if you read the spell too carefully, you're reading more into it than the designers necessarily did. Now, that doesn't affect RAW, necessarily, but it does effect RAI, which can give a context for interpreting RAW.

I am pretty sure that Non dimensional and Extra dimensional are the same thing.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 11:33 AM
Yeah, instead of having a DM fiat over abusive rope trick shennanigans, we should just ban the spell entirely. Much more fun.

I've never played in a game where either was necessary.

Jastermereel
2010-01-03, 11:37 AM
It says

Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes.
and

Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it.
...so most spells are out, but (provided you can see the invisible window) does the window stop crossbows? Volleys of Alchemist's Fire?

For that matter, can the 3x5 window be entered by a creature with flying? Unless the party fills the space, isn't there plenty of room for a medium/small creature(s) to jump in with them and cause some havoc?

Presumably it lets in air (as it doesn't have the same issue as stuffing people into a bag of holding) but what about smoke? Why not build a fire beneath it and smoke'em out? While CloudKill wouldn't work as a spell, wouldn't a pile of sticks and a tinderbox do the job just fine?

Optimystik
2010-01-03, 12:05 PM
Bordering on thread necromancy to respond to all this, but I find it interesting enough to risk it. I must admit I'm a bit surprised by the amount of "just ignore it" reactions, though obviously Skip Williams' little thing lends itself to that. Myself, I'm with the folks who say that what the guy who's mostly responsible for the Monster Manual says on the internet doesn't mean jack - if there was an 'official' line, it would have been changed in the errata or the 3.5 conversion. It seems pretty obvious to me that Williams just didn't want things to be too complicated, is all.

He wants people to have fun. What's the use of a rope trick you can't sleep in? At high levels, everyone's going to have bags of holding, haversacks etc. All you're doing is screwing the non-casters, because they can't secret chest their items, or teleport home and back, or astral projection, or planar ally an eladrin to store/retrieve their items etc. So they have to camp out in the dungeon and get their stuff stolen and damaged while the casters' advantage changes not a whit.

By the way, what makes you think his words pertained to 3.0? that article was dated well after 3.5 was released in 2003.


It seems obvious to me that Rope Trick is a way overpowered spell for it's level - the way folks describe using it on ye olde interwebs anyway. I rather thought that more folks would appreciate an overlooked aspect of the spell that would restrict its use and still be completely RAW.

RAW has no restrictions. "Hazardous" could mean it makes you itch.


I suppose it all stems from the lack of specifics and the style of play one gravitates toward. For instance:

I look at this and see the exact opposite as Optimystik - just because there aren't actual numbers attached to something doesn't mean you can just ignore it - it means that the DM (gasp!) decides the effect for themselves. As written, there defintiely is interaction, and the rules about interaction between extradimensional spaces we about from other sources certainly backs that up.

The DM can decide anything he wants. I'm not disputing that. But if he tries to hide behind the rules for justification, his players should know that neither the rules as written, nor WotC themselves, sanction limiting Rope Trick in this way.


Well, see now we're trying to be mindreaders, but does it really seem logical that the game designers intended for wizards to have this ridiculously overpwered spell available at 3rd level? That one 2nd-level spell slot means the party never has to worry about camping again?

A cantrip means the party never has to worry about carrying water ever again. A 3rd-level slot means they no longer have to hunt, or bring food. That's the point of magic - it makes the outdoors (and dungeons) easy.


Ah, but in this case the houserule is to ignore the SRD. It is a strange and possibly unique case - the rules declaring that the DM should make up the rules- but considering the alternative is massive overpowering of a low level spell, I think it should be worth forcing a DM to use their judgement and creativity.

Oh yes, it breaks the game wide open that the party can sleep/find shelter in the midst of your carefully crafted dungeon. If you hate your melee players that much, just ban the spell, nobody's stopping you. But don't try to claim it's because the rules force you to do so when they do no such thing.

Optimystik
2010-01-03, 12:30 PM
The best counter to Rope Trick is usually to make it clear to PCs that more interesting stuff will happen if they interact with things than if they spend the best part of each day sitting in a pocket isolation cell.

If a DM actually wants to counter it a simple solution is to use babaus (file:///Games/D20%20SRD/www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). They have See Invisibility and Dispel Magic at will, and they're only CR 6. Give the BBEG a few as scouts and messengers. They sneak around, spot the Rope Trick, dispel it.

However, a simpler solution is to just let the PCs do what they want. OK, so the PCs are in a rope trick. So what? The rest of the world will carry on without them. They're not under an obligation to do anything interesting. If they really want to hide and are actually enjoying themselves I don't really see the problem (it's a pretty weird way to spend a session, but hey, whatever floats your boat).

And Saph wins again.

jmbrown
2010-01-03, 12:30 PM
Yeah, it really doesn't say whether or not objects can't cross. Most people just assume because spells can't cross, neither can anything else. I don't think creatures can jump into it, though, because you have to use the rope to reach it.

elonin
2010-01-03, 12:36 PM
What's the abuse of rope trick? That an arcane caster will extend the spell to make it last long enough to sleep in? If they didn't intend for that to happen then they shouldn't have made the duration 1 hour / level or added the notion of pulling the rope up. As written the spell doesn't necessarily add safety since anyone who can fly/jump in the space even not using the rope can gain access.

It is also clear that the rule about placing one extradimensional space within another was to prevent the abuse of having a bag of holding into another (giving infinite storage). This isn't needed very much anymore since the mouth of these bags isn't infinite anymore (preventing carrying off furniture from dungeons).

graeylin
2010-01-03, 12:47 PM
really? Extra and Non mean the same thing?

i have a lot of non-spellcasters in my party who will be delighted to know they are now extra-spellcasters.

As well as my mages, being non-proficient with weapons are now extra-proficient with them. Yum.

Emmerask
2010-01-03, 12:50 PM
Yeah, instead of having a DM fiat over abusive rope trick shennanigans, we should just ban the spell entirely. Much more fun.

Yep the spell ruins higher level gameplay I did ban it in my campaigns.

hough I think with hazardous they are infact refering to the 3.0 rule (implosion) not knowing that 3.5 didnīt have that rule anymore wouldnīt be the first time wotc did make a mistake in rulings :smallwink:

Xenogears
2010-01-03, 01:02 PM
Yep the spell ruins higher level gameplay I did ban it in my campaigns.

hough I think with hazardous they are infact refering to the 3.0 rule (implosion) not knowing that 3.5 didnīt have that rule anymore wouldnīt be the first time wotc did make a mistake in rulings :smallwink:

I'm fairly sure that a bag of holding + portable hole still rip a hole in the universe.

I'm like 99% sure that that line is in the rope trick because the writers didn't want to give up the potential disaster of mixing extradimensional spaces of previous editions but didn't want to make the spell entirely useless. I think the intent of the line was not to say it should replicate the bag of holding/portable hole thing. I think the writers couldn't think of a reasonable consequence for mixing them that wouldn't screw everyone over but managed to keep the theme from previous editions. Thus they left it ambiguous in the hopes that each group would find their own magic balance between the ideas.

Atleast thats my take on it.

averagejoe
2010-01-03, 01:08 PM
The best counter to Rope Trick is usually to make it clear to PCs that more interesting stuff will happen if they interact with things than if they spend the best part of each day sitting in a pocket isolation cell.

If a DM actually wants to counter it a simple solution is to use babaus (file:///Games/D20%20SRD/www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#babau). They have See Invisibility and Dispel Magic at will, and they're only CR 6. Give the BBEG a few as scouts and messengers. They sneak around, spot the Rope Trick, dispel it.

However, a simpler solution is to just let the PCs do what they want. OK, so the PCs are in a rope trick. So what? The rest of the world will carry on without them. They're not under an obligation to do anything interesting. If they really want to hide and are actually enjoying themselves I don't really see the problem (it's a pretty weird way to spend a session, but hey, whatever floats your boat).

Good advice, but I'm actually asking as a player and not a GM. In the previous session I used Rope Trick (and other, more mundane tricks) to make off with an (evil) high level wizard's spellbook. No one else in the group really knew about the spell because they don't like to use arcanists, and I didn't know the subtleties because it isn't the sort of spell I really like to use. I had only prepared it in this case because I thought the GM would throw something unfairly high level at me in order to force a situation. So part of it was just that it had caught the GM by surprise, and none of us really knew what would work on it. In my particular situation I don't think it would have made a difference either way, but I still tend to feel somewhat guilty when I pull that sort of thing.

Keld Denar
2010-01-03, 01:14 PM
Would Transdimensional Spell metamagic work? Is extradimensional space astral? Ethereal? Other?

truemane
2010-01-03, 01:15 PM
Good advice, but I'm actually asking as a player and not a GM. In the previous session I used Rope Trick (and other, more mundane tricks) to make off with an (evil) high level wizard's spellbook. No one else in the group really knew about the spell because they don't like to use arcanists, and I didn't know the subtleties because it isn't the sort of spell I really like to use. I had only prepared it in this case because I thought the GM would throw something unfairly high level at me in order to force a situation. So part of it was just that it had caught the GM by surprise, and none of us really knew what would work on it. In my particular situation I don't think it would have made a difference either way, but I still tend to feel somewhat guilty when I pull that sort of thing.

It is a sort-of grey area. But if you're abusing your power because you were afraid of the DM abusing theirs, then the moral scales swing a little closer to zero.

Saph
2010-01-03, 01:24 PM
Good advice, but I'm actually asking as a player and not a GM.

Ah, OK. In that case go with Keld's suggestion: Transdimensional Spell. If you go to Complete Arcane and look it up you'll see that it specifically mentions rope trick as one of the things it affects.

It's quite brutal if used against a resting party. Surprise round, the enemy caster blasts everyone in the Rope Trick and wakes them up. First round, the enemy caster blasts everyone again. Since the PCs can't see where the attacks are coming from and need to spend actions on getting up and grabbing their gear, this tactic is highly likely to be a TPK, which is why I've never used it.

A less fatal alternative is to get something with see invisibility and dispel magic. Find the visible part of the Rope Trick, shoot dispels at it until it vanishes and the people inside it get dropped to the ground. Disruptive rather than lethal.

Evard
2010-01-03, 01:30 PM
There was a player in a party during one of my first chances to DM that used rope trick during bigger battles. He would climb up inside (pulling the rope up too) and then each round would stick a crossbow out and fire. Using true strike and the crossbow he hit nearly every time and did pretty good damage. Anytime that he would be really needed to nuke he would wait till his party would get in position and then jump out (+ feather fall ring) and cause chaos. Now he didn't pull this every time but only when he thought he was going to be destroyed because of his d4 hit die. The other players loved, i thought it was pretty nifty so i never actually done to much about it besides making it difficult to get into it/cast it.

Aldizog
2010-01-03, 01:40 PM
It's quite brutal if used against a resting party. Surprise round, the enemy caster blasts everyone in the Rope Trick and wakes them up. First round, the enemy caster blasts everyone again. Since the PCs can't see where the attacks are coming from and need to spend actions on getting up and grabbing their gear, this tactic is highly likely to be a TPK, which is why I've never used it.

A less fatal alternative is to get something with see invisibility and dispel magic. Find the visible part of the Rope Trick, shoot dispels at it until it vanishes and the people inside it get dropped to the ground. Disruptive rather than lethal.
Well, if somebody had invaded my home, stole my property, and killed my pet, and then had the gall to take a nap there, I'd aim for lethal rather than disruptive. On the other hand, the situations in which Transdimensional Spell are useful aren't common enough to make it a must-have feat for every enemy caster, and the merely-disruptive option doesn't require it.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-03, 01:45 PM
See Invisibility and Dispel Magic are sufficiently common spells that at higher levels of play, they're pretty likely, yeah. I can see that tactic being used.

While it's not lethal itself, whatever follows it is pretty likely to be.

DonEsteban
2010-01-03, 02:22 PM
...so most spells are out, but (provided you can see the invisible window) does the window stop crossbows? Volleys of Alchemist's Fire?

For that matter, can the 3x5 window be entered by a creature with flying? Unless the party fills the space, isn't there plenty of room for a medium/small creature(s) to jump in with them and cause some havoc?

Presumably it lets in air (as it doesn't have the same issue as stuffing people into a bag of holding) but what about smoke? Why not build a fire beneath it and smoke'em out? While CloudKill wouldn't work as a spell, wouldn't a pile of sticks and a tinderbox do the job just fine?

This could all be possible and fun except the smoke thing, probably.


Yeah, it really doesn't say whether or not objects can't cross. Most people just assume because spells can't cross, neither can anything else. I don't think creatures can jump into it, though, because you have to use the rope to reach it.

Well, there's nothing in the spell's description that supports this. Actually there's nothing that says whether anything at all (except spell effects, but including the caster) could enter the extradimensional space.

I don't think the creators thought much about all this because, to put it in V's words, they were probably somewhat preoccupied telling the Laws of Physics to shut up and sit down :))

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-03, 02:26 PM
There's a CR 11 creature in either the Manual of the Planes or Planar Handbook that can travel into even closed pocket dimensions or extraplanar spaces. It's called the Astral Dreadnought. Any DM who sends this after a party below level 8 is an ass by default though.

DonEsteban
2010-01-03, 02:31 PM
What's the abuse of rope trick? That an arcane caster will extend the spell to make it last long enough to sleep in?

Yeah, what's this abuse everybody seems to know about? So far it might be game ruining but is certainly not game breaking. (I did do a search.)

taltamir
2010-01-03, 02:46 PM
first of all, nobody is abusing rope trick, people are using it as intended...
Now you could argue that rope trick is broken and when used as intended it is overpowered... although there are other ways to achieve the same result. Get some phantom steeds and run really far away to set up camp, teleport back home, etc... but yes, rope trick is a fairly inexpensive and safe (if you blew a whole feat on it) place to rest.

Jastermereel
2010-01-03, 03:15 PM
While the consequences aren't spelled out explicitly, the text of the spell also warns against bringing other extradimentional spaces within a Rope Trick's space.

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.
Is it fair to expect that there's a Bag-of-Holding/Portable-Hole style reaction if you do? If so, what's the cheapest item with an extradimentional space?

Dumping the cowards out 30 feet above the ground is one thing, but an Astral Rift (or destroying them outright) is really showing'em you mean business.

erikun
2010-01-03, 03:23 PM
A thought occured to me the other day about this subject, so it's good to see it still alive.

Why is applying negative consequences to Rope Trick considered not-RAW and DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "hazardous") while applying negative consequences to Wish is considered completely RAW and not the least bit DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "dangerous")?

Clearly Wish is more open and potentially game-breaking while Rope Trick is simply a place to sleep for the night - that's not quite the point. After all, if we're talking RAWverse, then we're addressing the application of literal rules as written in the books (or in the SRD). Why would one line in one spell being "hazardous" get ignored while a similar line in another spell being "dangerous" receive the full RAW treatment?

taltamir
2010-01-03, 03:27 PM
Why is applying negative consequences to Rope Trick considered not-RAW and DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "hazardous")
because it is


while applying negative consequences to Wish is considered completely RAW and not the least bit DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "dangerous")?
uh. what? wish is known as the universal suicide spell, you cast it and you die. And that IS by the RAW because all the examples of wish perversions took sensible wishes that could have been executed safely (up to the limit of the spell) and gave horrible insta death results.

erikun
2010-01-03, 03:35 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136734 <- for a discussion on the Rope Trick/Portable Hole interaction. I wouldn't recommend it, just as I wouldn't recommend dumping them into the Astral because the spell was dispelled - even if there is a logical reason for doing so. Well, not unless you wanted to take the campaign into the Astral anyways...


Would Transdimensional Spell metamagic work? Is extradimensional space astral? Ethereal? Other?
Extradimensional space is generally considered to be pocket Astral dimensions, or at least similar spells (Secret Chest) work by moving stuff into the Astral. Ethereal spells wouldn't work, and you generally can't use planar travel to get into an extradimensional space. (If you can, then the BBEG would attack the contents of a player's Bags of Holding directly... and vice versa.)


But anyway, Detect Magic will let you know it's there, but not indicate what exactly the Rope Trick is. See Invisibility will see the portal, although not inside. The spell Rope Trick specifically says the people inside can pull up the rope, so that isn't a visible clue. And of course, there is spotting the invisible portal itself.

As for disabling, there isn't much that can reach inside an extradimensional space. Dispelling, in various forms, will "turn off" the spell and likely just dump everyone inside onto the ground. Setting up traps or waiting in ambush would be the best mundane ways to deal with a Rope Trick.

erikun
2010-01-03, 03:39 PM
So Wish perversion is RAW, not because of anything written in the books, but because of stereotypical fiction? And Rope Trick perversion is not RAW because... it isn't.

I'm not asking why Wish perversion is RAI or a good idea (it is, because it's a fantasy troupe/because it's overpowering/et cetera). I'm asking why one is RAW and the other is not, and what is the difference between the two, as written.

Emmerask
2010-01-03, 03:45 PM
because it is


But it is also dm fiat to impose no negative consequences!
The spell is worded so that each dm can and must use his own rules regarding it being hazardous(or not so much).But either way it is dm fiat :smalltongue:

/edit
Or it is just a houseruling issue depending on your point of view, lots of people call everything that is not in favor of the wizard dm fiat and everything that is rai :smallbiggrin:

Boci
2010-01-03, 03:56 PM
Yeah, instead of having a DM fiat over abusive rope trick shennanigans, we should just ban the spell entirely. Much more fun.

Well its either one or the other. God forbid the DM actually try to talk to his players and try and reach a compromise. That would just be madness.

taltamir
2010-01-03, 04:00 PM
So Wish perversion is RAW, not because of anything written in the books, but because of stereotypical fiction?
WOTC sanctioned examples, not fiction.
Aladin is stereotypical fiction, WOTC examples for DM is a guideline for running a game.


And Rope Trick perversion is not RAW because... it isn't.
There is nothing in the RAW that says rope trick should be perverted. There is a flavor text saying some ominous sounding things, but flavor text routinely contradicts the actual rule text, and the rules takes precedence.

Not to mention, that if you rule that way, and rope trick is really that abusive, then the players will just abuse it without ever taking an extra dimensional space into it.


I'm not asking why Wish perversion is RAI or a good idea (it is, because it's a fantasy troupe/because it's overpowering/et cetera). I'm asking why one is RAW and the other is not, and what is the difference between the two, as written.

You are not asking, you are stating what "everyone else" TM thinks.

And there nothing good about perverting wishes. You spend 5000xp, an invaluable amount, on a wish. It should not pervert, it should do as much work as it cans and then fail / partially fulfill... ex: I wish for millions of GP should give you 25,000gp (max wish can grant) instead of killing you.
its not much of a fantasy trope either, I don't recall Aladdin's wishes being perverted. For that manner, I can't think of a single fantasy story when it happened.

Emmerask
2010-01-03, 04:01 PM
Well its either one or the other. God forbid the DM actually try to talk to his players and try and reach a compromise. That would just be madness.

Well it is quite hard to come up with something that wont make the spell useless (like having to put your bags of holding outside) or something that is so minor that no one cares. In my gaming group we had a lengthy discussion about what could be done and didnīt come to any conclusion that was satisfying.
So in the end I just banned the spell :smallwink:

Boci
2010-01-03, 04:03 PM
Well it is quite hard to come up with something that wont make the spell useless (like having to put your bags of holding outside) or something that is so minor that no one cares. In my gaming group we had a lengthy discussion about what could be done and didnīt come to any conclusion that was satisfying.
So in the end I just banned the spell :smallwink:

At least you tried. As a DM I would tell the players "use it at much as you like, but don't be too suprised when every so often a monster with see invisibility and at will dispel catches you mid rest".

Or warn them that there is a base chance they get teleported to some random plane. Make the %-tage chance low so that they can use it every now and then without trouble but spamming it becomes dangerous.

graeylin
2010-01-03, 04:56 PM
While the consequences aren't spelled out explicitly, the text of the spell also warns against bringing other extradimentional spaces within a Rope Trick's space.

Is it fair to expect that there's a Bag-of-Holding/Portable-Hole style reaction if you do? If so, what's the cheapest item with an extradimentional space?

Dumping the cowards out 30 feet above the ground is one thing, but an Astral Rift (or destroying them outright) is really showing'em you mean business.

the rope trick states it is a bad idea to take EXTRADIMENSIONAL items into the rope trick space (being extradimensional itself). It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

The Bag of holding is a NON-Dimensional space, not an Extra dimensional space.
RAW, there should be no problem.

For further justification, the text with the bag and hole refer to each other (If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process. for the Hole, Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space. If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in that place. Both the bag and the cloth are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, the portable hole and bag of holding being destroyed in the process.) Nothing is said about taking them into Extradimensional spaces, just inside each other.

Optimystik
2010-01-03, 05:12 PM
Saph's solution from the other thread seems quite reasonable to me. Babau patrols (or something else that can see invisibility and dispel) are well within reason for most BBEGs.

Banning/houseruling the spell simply screws melee yet again. The casters still have ways to store more than they can carry, only now its harder for them to help out the rest of the party as well. (Secret Chest, Teleport, Plane Shift, Planar Ally a celestial to keep them for you, etc.)

You of course have the right to ban the spell and/or ascribe all kinds of negative consequences to its interaction with storage, but don't use the RAW or the RAI as justification for doing so. Be honest and up front with your players that you simply don't want to deal with the spell being used for its intended purpose - giving players a safe place to sleep in hostile territory.

taltamir
2010-01-03, 05:53 PM
Wait wait wait...we are missing a golden opportunity. We can finally retire "a wizard did it" with "Rope trick + BoH." It is dangerous in a vaguely threatening way as it introduces pure chaos. Everything can be explained with it.

"what? why would any merciful god allow such a thing" "gods have nothing to do with it bub, some fool musta taken a BoH into a rope trick again, gods save our souls"

in all seriousness, stealth ban suck... just be upfront and tell the players that the spell is banned because it is too good. problem solved.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-04, 12:14 AM
For that manner, I can't think of a single fantasy story when it happened.Play more Twisted Metal. Or watch Disney's Aladin 2.

Xenogears
2010-01-04, 12:33 AM
Play more Twisted Metal. Or watch Disney's Aladin 2.

First of all Alladin 1 had Jafars genie wish perverted so no need to go to the sequel.

Seond of all as awesomely fun as it is Twisted Metal is not quite a fantasy story.

However perverted wishes in fantasy? Greek Mythology. "I wish he would never die of old age" "Sure. But he keeps getting old and eventually turns into a friggin cricket." "I wish everything I touched turned to gold" = Not quite what he meant.

taltamir
2010-01-04, 12:38 AM
First of all Alladin 1 had Jafars genie wish perverted so no need to go to the sequel.
His wish wasn't perverted, it was granted as he requested it. Aladdin tricked him into making a stupid wish, but none of his many wishes was perverted.


However perverted wishes in fantasy? Greek Mythology. "I wish he would never die of old age" "Sure. But he keeps getting old and eventually turns into a friggin cricket." "I wish everything I touched turned to gold" = Not quite what he meant.

Point, in ancient greek mythology they did have wish perversion.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-04, 12:50 AM
A thought occured to me the other day about this subject, so it's good to see it still alive.

Why is applying negative consequences to Rope Trick considered not-RAW and DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "hazardous") while applying negative consequences to Wish is considered completely RAW and not the least bit DM fiat (based on the spell calling such activities "dangerous")?

Clearly Wish is more open and potentially game-breaking while Rope Trick is simply a place to sleep for the night - that's not quite the point. After all, if we're talking RAWverse, then we're addressing the application of literal rules as written in the books (or in the SRD). Why would one line in one spell being "hazardous" get ignored while a similar line in another spell being "dangerous" receive the full RAW treatment?

Mostly because Wish is much more explicit about what happens. For example, if you cast wish, and take one of the auto-granted options, life is happy. Wish also contains instructions for what happens if things go bad: "a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment." This isn't an explicit consequence, but gives a very good idea as to what sort of consequence can be expected.

Xenogears
2010-01-04, 01:01 AM
His wish wasn't perverted, it was granted as he requested it. Aladdin tricked him into making a stupid wish, but none of his many wishes was perverted.

I suppose that is true...
Fine I'll go with the stupid monkey paw...

taltamir
2010-01-04, 10:10 AM
Although, as someone mentioned Aladdin 2... there Jafar the genie perverts any wish, no matter how innocent...
did they actually name the blue genie? or did they just leave him with the name "genie"?

Xenogears
2010-01-04, 10:11 AM
Although, as someone mentioned Aladdin 2... there Jafar the genie perverts any wish, no matter how innocent...
did they actually name the blue genie? or did they just leave him with the name "genie"?

Robin Williams Genie is just called Genie. Even in the show where they go in ten million adventures Aladdin never bothers to learn his name.